RAYMOND CONCRETE PILE COMPANY, an American Firm doing Business in Liberia, by and through its Manager, THOMAS ROACH, Appellant-Petitioner, v. His Honor, M. M. PERRY, Assigned Circuit Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, and MADGE HAMILTON, Appellees-Respondents.

APPEAL FROM RULING IN CHAMBERS ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY. Argued October 28, 1959. Decided January 15, 1960. 1. Certiorari will not ordinarily be granted to review an interlocutory ruling on a question of law. 2. Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy which will not be granted where adequate relief can be obtained through regular processes of appeal. On appeal from a ruling in Chambers denying certiorari, ruling affirmed. J. H. Smythe for appellant-petitioner. 0. Natty B. Davis for appellees-respondents. MR. JUSTICE WARDSWORTH delivered the opinion of the Court. The above-entitled cause is before us on appeal from a ruling of His Honor, Dessaline T. Harris, Justice presiding in Chambers. Petitioner’s counsel strenuously argued before this bar to the effect that these certiorari proceedings were instituted because His Honor, Judge Perry, in passing on the law issues, dismissed defendant’s answer, which act of the trial Judge was contended to be materially prejudicial ; wherefore counsel contended that certiorari is the proper legal remedy to correct this allegedly erroneous ruling of the said trial Judge. LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 523 For the benefit of this opinion, we quote hereunder, word for word, Counts “3” and “4” of petitioners’ petition, which read as follows : “3. And your petitioner begs most respectfully further to show that, after argument pro et con on the law issues, His Honor, MacDonald M. Perry, one of the respondents in these proceedings, did rule that the answer and rejoinder be dismissed, and that the case be ruled to trial on its merits, and that defendant-petitioner be ruled to bare denial, as will more fully appear from a copy of said ruling, marked Exhibit ‘D,’ and forming a part of this petition as fully and completely as if the contents thereof were contained in this paragraph of this petition. “4. And your petitioner begs most respectfully further to show that the aforesaid ruling of respondent Judge MacDonald M. Perry, one of the respondents in these proceedings is materially prejudicial to the right and interests of petitioner ; wherefore petitioner has appealed to this Honorable Court to review said rule because the case is still pending in the court below and give such judgment as to Your Honor may seem just and proper in keeping with law.” The method adopted by petitioner in these certiorari proceedings is a novel procedure, foreign to the judiciary system within this jurisdiction, in that it aims at contravening fundamental principles of law and would lend aid or encouragement to a multiplicity of suits and delay justice; it is suggestive of introducing the idea of reviewing cases in piecemeal by this Court, which has been declared as being irregular, if not illegal, and which this Court has unequivocally avowed not to uphold. Our statutes have in no uncertain terms laid down the course to be followed in the conduct of a case, that is to say, it is specifically provided that the disposition of law issues 524 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS shall be the first duty of a court or Judge ; and the party against whom the ruling on law issues is entered may except thereto whereupon the said alleged erroneous ruling may be reviewed by the appellate court, it being within its province to examine upon the merits every decision, both as to law and facts, the proceedings of an inferior tribunal ; as also to affirm, revise, and reverse the judgment complained against, or give such judgment as the trial court should have given, for the promotion of substantial justice, as the exigency of the case might demand. “A remedial writ is an extraordinary remedy, usually applied for in order to prevent an injury to a party that may be irreparable, or without which the ordinary method of appeal may not give an adequate remedy.” Daniel v. Campania Transmediterranea, [1934] LRSC 10; 4 L.L.R. 97 (1934) Syllabus “4.” In the light of the above, it is obvious that certiorari does not lie where there is ample and complete remedy open to the aggrieved party, as in the case under review. The institution of these certiorari proceedings is without legal foundation and therefore unmeritorious. Therefore, it is our considered opinion, in view of the surrounding circumstances and the law cited above, that the ruling of the Justice presiding in Chambers should be affirmed. And it is so ordered. Ruling affirmed.